DECISION This appeal from the order of the Labour Court No. III, Karachi, arises in the following circumstances..
2. The appellants in the capacity of the `C.BA.' of the respondent establishment served a `Charter - of Demands' demanding bonus at the rate of four gross salaries, in addition to bonus under Standing Order. 10-C of the Ordinance, 1968 vide notice, dated 9-8-1983. Negotiations followed and failed with the result that there was a Strike Notice, dated 21-8-1983. The dispute was taken before the Conciliator but fizzled out. It was thereafter that the appellant union had filed a petition before the Labour Court under section 32(1-A) of the I.R.O.
3. In the statement of claim it was stated that the respondents were having a monopoly in their line, trading in, precuring, selling and exporting cotton and had announced only two months gross wages and two months basic wages by way of bonus and that too without consulting the appellant union.
4. In the Reply Statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it was stated that on the direction of the Federal Government the respondent had given them other substantial benefits even retrospectively. Inter alia it was alleged that on 3-9-1983 the management had given ex gratia payment plus special pay. Further there was a settlement between the parties in March, 1982 and there could be no further demands of any financial implication during the subsistence of the settlement.
5. Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, General Secretary appeared on behalf of the petitioners and Bilal Muhammad Akhtar, General Manager, Internal Audit Department of the respondent Corporation appeared on behalf of the respondents.
6. The Labour Court, for the reasons given by it, dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.
7. The activities of the respondents being in the nature of State monopoly, the question of matching the demands and grants with comparable concerns does not arise at all. The record also shows that in the preceding year (i.e. 198,1-82) the respondent had suffered a loss in their business.
However, the table of the profits and the award of bonus from the year 1979 to 1983 is before us, being as follows: "Financial YearAmount in MillionBonus 1979-80, profit before TaxRs.151.1241 Gross, 2 Basic 1980-81, profit before TaxRs.723.4292 Gross, 2 basic 1981-82, Loss before Tax:Rs.237.307NIL 1982-83, profit before TaxRs.76.6851 Gross, 1 basic 1983-84, profit before TaxRs.45.8901 Gross, only."
With that as a yardstick before us it cannot be said that the appellant had been given an unfair deal for the period in question.
8. However, what goes to the root of the case is the finality clause in the settlement which is in the following words: (a)....................................................................................................------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------.....................
(b)The union undertakes and agrees that, during the period this settlement is in force, it shall not raise, submit or pursue any demand including any demand of the nature coveted by this settlement or having any direct or indirect financial bearing or implication on the part of the Management in any form or forms during currency of this agreement."
9. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the settlement was arrived at before the award of the bonus and therefore it will not attract the mischief of section 44 of I.R.O. I am afraid the contention is rather tenous because looking to the language of the clause referred to above, any sort of demand with any financial implication could not be raised during the subsistence of the settlement which was to end on 15-9-1983. Reference may be made to a decision of this Tribunal given by its first Chairman the Late Mr. Justice Inamullah Khan in the case of Employees' Union v. Holy Family Hospital and another 1975 PLC 118.
10. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no substance in the appeal. Accordingly I will affirm the order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.